Who said this
 

"Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get reelected and as sure as you're sitting there is to start a war with Iran."

Trump said it. It was a stupid thing to say, and he should be criticized for it. Unfortunately for you, his opponent in the 2016 election also said equally outrageous things (that tens of millions of Americans are deplorable and irredeemable), and she got held accountable for that.

Stop telling us Trump has a big fat mouth. We all know that. Nobody, not one single person, disagrees with you. Do something productive, petition the DNC to nominate someone who has some appeal to voters between the coasts. That's your challenge. You don't need to convince one person here, not one, that he's not a good guy. He's also not starting the conflict with Iran. They started it.

Just more Covfefe from Jim.
In 20 years you can be one of the 90% of people who say they never supported the war with Iran, because you didn't really like Floridaman.

Or you could say we started it 70 years ago...Americans seem to have forgotten that, Iran hasn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When Eisenhower's CIA helped Iranians put the Shah in? Iran was a peaceful ally up until then?

Pete, what would you have told Trump to do, given that this guy was responsible for a large number of American deaths, was a big ally to terrorists, and we are told today that he was making plans for future attacks on Americans? What would YOU have told Trump to do? Nothing?

Say nothing, absolutely nothing, kill Soleimani, say nothing, if his replacement continues the same actions repeat as needed.

But you cannot do that legally and it's questionable if they actually could do what they did within the law.

That is why you see them scrambling to come up something both believable and admit-able that it prevented.
But I forgot, you are a Trumplican to whom laws, debt and morality no longer matter because you need to save the world from the Democrat Thugs on the left, the Scum on the right and anyone else that would oppose The Chosen One.

"Say nothing, absolutely nothing, kill Soleimani, say nothing, if his replacement continues the same actions repeat as needed.

But you cannot do that legally "

So again, what would you do?

"you see them scrambling to come up something both believable and admit-able that it prevented"

Earth to Pete...this man cannot kill any more Americans. The reason why the mullahs picked him to be their terror tool, is because he was very good at it. If someone else was better at it, he would have been in charge. We prevented this guy from killing anyone else. As to whether or not it prevented future attacks as they are saying, what evidence do you have that this is false? Other than the fact that Trump could say "water is wet", and you'd reflexively say "the hell it is!", what evidence do you have they they are lying? If they are lying, I want to know. So tell me what you're basing that on...

All Floridaman, all the way, all the time
Soleimani was one man, not nearly as powerful as Floridaman.
Just one of those tough choices that Presidents have to make, isn't it?
Glad I don't
The last two presidents had the same opportunity and decided the cost was not worth it.
We'll see what the costs are and if Floridaman's administration can deal with the effects of what he has done.

Is that true? They had him in their sights, but declined to act?

Or Israel, he could have been taken out at any time over the last 20 years. Why now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Rep. Elissa Slotkin's comments on Soleimani and Floridaman

Congresswoman for Michigan's 8th Congressional District. Proud Michigander. Former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense, CIA analyst.

As a former Shia militia analyst who served multiple tours in Iraq and worked at the White House under both Presidents Bush and Obama, and later at the Pentagon, I participated in countless conversations on how to respond to Qassem Soleimani’s violent campaigns across the region.
If you worked on the Middle East over the past 20 years, you dealt with the growing organization and sophistication of Soleimani’s covert and overt military activities, which have contributed to significant destabilization across the region.
I watched friends and colleagues get hurt or killed by Iranian rockets, mortars and explosive devices that were provided to Iraqi proxies and used against U.S. forces under Soleimani’s guidance.
We watched as his power increased and he brought strength and capability to groups in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, and to smaller cells around the Middle East and the world, with devastating consequences.
What always kept both Democratic and Republican presidents from targeting Soleimani himself was the simple question:

Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict?

The two administrations I worked for both determined that the ultimate ends didn’t justify the means. The Trump Administration has made a different calculation.

The Iranian government has vowed to retaliate and avenge Soleimani’s death, and could do so in any number of ways:
Against our diplomats and service members or high-ranking military officers, against our allies and partners in the region, or through targeted attacks in the Western world.
It is critical that the Administration has thought out the moves and counter-moves this attack will precipitate, and is prepared to protect our diplomats, service members, and citizens serving overseas.
This Admin., like all others, has the right to act in self-defense. But the Administration must come to Congress immediately and consult.

If military engagement is going to be protracted — which any informed assessment would consider — the Administration must request an AUMF.
Congress also has a deep interest in the future of our relationship with Iraq, given our investment of blood and treasure there to rid the region of ISIS.

Congress needs to understand the Administration’s plan as soon as possible.

timely to retweet
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.
5:46 AM · Aug 31, 2013·Twitter for Android

spence, my senator chris
murphy sentmout a tweet after the contractor was killed and the atta k on the embassy, saying that trump
allowed the US to be impotent in the region, and that we couldn't let Iran get away with this.

Today, the same guy sent a tweet calling Trump an irresponsible, neocon warhawk who was needlessly instigating iran.

those tweets were sent by a US senator who i know you love, only a few days apart. it’s impossible to take you people
seriously when you act like that.

I have no knowledge that we had a good chance to kill him previously. obama
killed bin laden, so we know he doesn’t faint at the thought. If we had the chance, i don’t k ow why we didn’t take it. I do know that i don’t like letting people help
kill and maim a huge number of
americans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and if he was in Iraq specifically to help
organize future attacks
in americans, it’s almost a no brainer. Maybe that’s why now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dramatic and dangerous escalation and I’d be shocked if Trump even has a clue how to estimate the fallout or how to deal with it. I want intelligence community in front of congress to hear what justification they had to throw gas of the Middle East fire.

Floridaman doesn’t want to go to jail, so he starts a war to distract.
Because after he’s impeached, indicted and convicted he and Rudy will be with Manafort, Stone and Flynn in subsidized housing without a golf course.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It will be fine,some day we will all laugh that some people jumped to conclusions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device